As many people have already pointed out, many of these titles are not SFF. But what the heck, right!?!

Every time lists like this one appear, I realize that I'm not as well-read as I'd like. In addition, I realize that many books that critics adore put me right to sleep and were a waste of my time. Still, I take heart from the fact that I agree with many of these selections. . .:-)

Wow. I've only read 13 of the must read books in my favorite genre. Either I haven't read nearly as many good books as I thought or they have no idea what they're doing. And as far as miscues on the list, no Richard K. Morgan or Stephen Erikson? Really?

They don't have Erikson or Martin on there, because high fantasy is pretty far from what literature is. These are books everyone 'must read', as in, something is in them for everyone. I can guarantee that Jordan or Erikson is not for everyone; hell they're not even for me.

Literature is something that exists beyond entertainment or catchy plots.

Pat - I didn't let the folks at Ran's into the secret - that MJH was on the '1000 novels' panel. I was waiting for someone to point it out, but nobody did. Maybe I'm the only one that actually reads the Guardian!

I think more people are missing the point here than at Ran's though - and I thought it would be the other way around.

From my point of view, this feels a lot more like a list of litterature classics that had, for some reason or another, an impact on the litterary world than it does a list of book you would actually recommend to someone for reading. For instance, the books chosen for K Dick or for W. Gibson may be their most emblematic but are far from being their best imo.And what can then be said about the absence of giants of the genre like Zelazny, Scott Card, Martin, or others... Or this they put classics in it, the absence of Jules Verne who very nearly invented science fiction.

I was surprised by how many I've read - 48. This is the product of my childhood reading habits when I read anything even slightly resembling sf and didn't have much choice but the classics since there wasn't much else out in, then, communist Poland. However, some of them I barely remember which means they are not much of must reads as those should leave lasting impressions.

An odd mess. The Pratchett selection is very general -- the Discworld series, which is up to what now? 9,824 books. They chose the collective 'Chronicles of Narnia', instead of individual books. And the entire Earthsea series by LeGuin. Meanwhile they only select Asimov's Foundation (not the series) and the first Harry Potter?